Good writing

I chanced upon this entry in A Pedagogue's Progress on my first visit there, and am pleasantly surprised by the read. Learning to read critically, to get past useless words and discern the real meaning and intention behind writings is the most important thing that I acquired from my studies in NUS, and I often sought to practice this skill when reading the Straits Times. It is an entertaining exercise because so much of the writing inside about local events carry hidden significances behind the superficial meanings; noticing what's conspicuously absent is interesting too.

Things that make me angry

Browsing the Straits Times can be unbearable at times. I'm one of maybe ten people on this island who considers the state of prose -- no pun intended -- to be an important barometer of the nation's health and who gets upset by bad writing. Consider this latest egregious specimen, culled from today's Forum page:

As global uncertainties are now greater than ever, I contend that the long-term security and prosperity of Singapore require a shift in paradigm to one in which we cultivate a broad-based pool of highly critical and creative thinkers from multiple disciplines [italics mine].

The author isn't a government official, but he sure does his clichés like our ministries' finest press secretaries. There are six of them in the small sentence above, each a sin against the English language and clear thought. Since I'm in a particularly vicious mood right now -- it is Imagined Community and Manufactured Enthusiasm Day, after all -- I'm actually going to explain what any avid reader of good literature will tell you is self-evident: I'm going to devote time and space to analysing that sentence.

So, "global uncertainties are now greater than ever." Than ever? Ever? Even greater than during the Great Depression, Second World War, Cuban Missile Crisis, 1970s oil crisis, Asian Financial Crisis, general crisis of the 14th century? Every generation takes perverse comfort in reassuring itself that the world is going to hell in a handbasket (a uniquely American term, apparently; I first heard it from Bill Spengemann), but is never able to demonstrate even the slightest ounce of historical judgement required to validate such sweeping, inelegant claims.

Why always talk about "long-term security and prosperity"? Why not just say "future"? More matter with less art.

No no no no no no. Do not ever use paradigm shift unless you have read Thomas Kuhn (I haven't) and know precisely what it means. Even then, it's intellectual pretentious. All that the author is saying is that we ought to think differently. Which is ironic, since he's not doing that at all.

"[B]road-based pool" just doesn't make sense at all. It's an awful metaphor.

Ah, "critical and creative thinkers." And not ordinary ones, but "highly" to boot! (Maybe it's just me, but "highly critical" brings to mind crabby Chinese teachers.) We've abused this catchphrase so much that we no longer have any clear idea what it means, except that it is a Very Good Thing (rather like Democracy in some other places). Seriously now. You can neither legislate morality nor marshal intelligence and intellect to serve the ends of nation-building.

What does the author mean by"multiple disciplines"? Are we talking about scholarly disciplines like Anthropology, Physics, History, Art, and Music here, or pseudo-subjects like Hotel Administration, Event Planning, and Motivational Speaking? Because you aren't going to find very many "highly critical and creative" artists, physicists, musicians, and anthropologists who are willing to hang around in this place. Certainly not when they are only supposed to be contributing to "long-term security and [material] prosperity."

The ideas underpinning the sentence aren't only bad and lacking in analytical rigour; they're also markedly unoriginal: we need more intelligent people to ensure our nation's future. It's common sense (which, as one begins increasingly to realise, isn't very common at all), and the government has been saying it for years. Why has our author cottoned on to this only now?

Sadly, what limited experience (which, "though noon auctoritee / Were in this world, is right ynogh for me") I do have of Singaporean prose suggests that sentences like the above are the norm rather than the exception. I've no way of proving this, of course, to any satisfactory degree, except to say that I don't recall ever reading anything in the local print media that's struck me as really well-written. The best Singaporean prose stylist, as far as I can tell, is Xenoboy, but while the quality of online writing is on the whole much higher, we still have a long way to go before we can match up to the likes of this guy.

Just a sobering thought, this Imagined Community and Manufactured Enthusiasm Day.